Mr. WEO Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 The CBA only cost "$100s of millions" if teams spent the max. Teams can't be forced by the CBA to spend to the cap each year. If the union decertifies, the players cannot bargain with the league as a group. You will not see guaranteed contracts---the lack of them is absolutely essential to the owners' financial stability. Very few players stay on the same team for more than 3 years and it will be hard to unload the contracts of players who bust. This should be a concern for the Bills. The league giving up 3% more of total revenue has not hurt Ralph over the past 3 years. He's still putting plenty in the bank. If the anti-trust exemption was lost (who's going to pick up Bills broadcasts? How much is that worth?) or the owners surrendered the no guarantee status of their contracts to shave a few points off the players' take of revenues-----the Bills would quickly fold. It would be the worst choice the owners could make. Forget the Yankees---look at the Knicks--they are doomed to suck for years based on poor player selections and foolish contracts. They will probably push for 60% of something less than total revenue for players. They'll sweeten it with some money for the codgers or something. What is the players' leverage here?
VOR Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 What is the players' leverage here? What was the players' leverage back in 2006?
Bill from NYC Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Good stuff. Agree with both you and John, a rookie cap is an absolute necessity -- but perhaps tougher to convince the star players of that fact than one might think, because they can use those rooks' inflated contracts as ammo when their own deals come due. A rookie cap is confusing to me Lori. What do you think would happen if a rookie came in and had an Eric Dickerson type rookie season. Would any agent NOT hold the player out? The weird part about the structure is that neither side seems bound to honor a contract. For example yes, Peters did hold out, but if he played like Corey Loucheiy he would have been cut because contracts are not guaranteed. Complicated stuff.
BillsfaninFl Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 What was the players' leverage back in 2006? In the end, it is the fans who get screwed, whatever ends up being in the CBA. The entire financial situation in the NFL has been spiraling out of control for years. Retired players keep mentioning they can't believe how player salaries have skyrocketed. Greedy owners made it happen and the just as greedy "stars" want to keep it going. Realizing that 100% of NFL players get injured during their careers, and the suffering they have to endure both during and long after their careers, all players should be paid well. That being said, there is no justification in my mind for a star player to receive ten times (or more) what a slightly lesser player gets. Each year, good players are forced to leave their team (and sometimes the NFL) because of the huge amount being paid to the few at the top of the payroll. The salary cap did that. But the bottom line is whatever increases are generated in the "agreement / league expenses" will be passed on to the poor shmucks attending games, buying team paraphenalia, etc. We are the source of the money, without a vote. And the problem will only get fixed when the cash cow dies (i.e. the fans say "I'm not paying what you are asking for this entertainment"). I cannot care about the plight of the star players or the owners who, while so many people have lost income or investment money during this recession, will ask us to pay more for their product. And they will!
dogbyte Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I think people forget at the time of the new CBA, the league was in the middle of getting a new super deal for TV money. Bob Kraft was the one that brokered the new deal that gave RW a lot more money. Being one of the shrewdest businessman he also got put into the TV contract that the owners would get a high % of the TV money even if there was a work stoppage. The owners also set aside money to help teams survive any lockout. This is why the owners opted out of the CBA early because they had these things in place now and not 2 years ago. It was a hurried and bad CBA agreement but they needed time to prepare. I think you will see that the owners are holding all the cards unless the government steps in.
billsfan89 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 What makes the NFL less likely to have a long strike/lockout is the fact that they make soooooo much money and neither the owners nor the players want to kill the golden goose. And the players in the NFL are more likely to cross the line during a strike. The NBA and NHL are more prone to work stoppages because the owners are willing to sacrifice a year in order to make the league more fiscally viable. Both unions of the NHL and NBA are willing to loose part of a season in order to insure better salaries for the rest of their playing days. In the MLB the players are willing to go on strike because they are more willing to sacrifice a year in order to get what they want long term. The MLB players union is the most powerful sports union out there because they think more long term than any other union. The NFL players don't like to go on strike because they have such a short window to play that they don't like to sacrifice a year of their careers. The Owners know this and use that to get what they want from the players. The Owners also know that they can just use replacement players and hope that they cross the line once the replacements take the field. So I don't expect a strike because the owners in football usually just get what they want. They make a few minor concessions to the players don't pout but the owners are the real winners. And until the players are willing to go on Strike and not cross the line it will always be that way. Also the owners will get a Billion Dollars (About 31 million a team) during the 2011 season from their NFL Sunday Ticket deal even if there isn't a season played not a bad warchest to sit back on.
VOR Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 I think people forget at the time of the new CBA, the league was in the middle of getting a new super deal for TV money.Bob Kraft was the one that brokered the new deal that gave RW a lot more money. Being one of the shrewdest businessman he also got put into the TV contract that the owners would get a high % of the TV money even if there was a work stoppage. The owners also set aside money to help teams survive any lockout. This is why the owners opted out of the CBA early because they had these things in place now and not 2 years ago. It was a hurried and bad CBA agreement but they needed time to prepare. I think you will see that the owners are holding all the cards unless the government steps in. The league has negotiated network payment during work stoppage for at least the last 2 decades (i.e. since the last work stoppage in 1987, although realize that the networks get credits towards future payments should that happen, so it's not like the owners takes no hit at all if it happens, along with losing other revenue like parking, concessions, etc., like john said). So that had nothing to do with the 2006 CBA. And if they continued to get paid during a work stoppage, a "war chest" (which I haven't heard talk of before) wouldn't be needed, since they wouldn't have to pay the players, because, well, they're locked-out. As for Kraft's work with the TV contracts, the NFL has sold itself since Fox entered the fray in 1993 (a year before Kraft bought the Patriots) and created a "scarcity" if you will, since CBS, NBC, and ABC all had their nice neat little packages. However ABC did recently pull-out, and if they don't re-enter, this will negatively impact the "scarcity" of the NFL product. The only smart thing the owners did was to include the "opt-out" clause. I don't know if they have ever put that into any of their other CBA's, but they obviously did it because they realized that this was a bad, bad deal. What would have been smarter however was putting the screws to the players in 2006, before they got a taste of 59.5% of TOTAL revenue. Speaking of which, another question you may ask is, why base the cap on total revenue? Why not a higher percentage of shared revenue?
Big Turk Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Here is what the players and the NFLPA is forgetting.... The owners, by and in large were able to buy NFL teams because they made their money elsewhere. The players get paid by the teams and basically have no other options to make money if they aren't getting paid by an NFL team(at least not the kind of money they are used to making). So the people holding all the cards here are the owners, who have a much, much, much better ability to withstand any type of work stoppage than the players, by and in large because they are making money elsewhere as well, which most likely dwarfs the money they are making on their NFL team. NFL careers are short. Are the players really willing to forgo an entire year of salary when they will never have another chance to get it back? Are the players willing to skip a year and have to fight for their roster spot with TWO rookie draft classes? There would be a LOT of veterans losing their jobs.... All the owners would have to do is wait until the players run out of money and then they would basically have to agree with whatever the owners wanted to, or go work at Walmart, or some other low paying job since many of them aren't well educated. Even those who are well educated likely would be taking a humongous pay cut regardless of what job they found. So, while the NFLPA can talk tough right now, they are like the little yorkie on the porch barking and barking and barking as the big dog walks away, after being silent while the big dog walks in front of their house.... If the best they can do is say we will tell the American people about what the NFL did, they obviously don't have a very strong position in their own mind, or more likely, talk a good game, but in the end don't have much to back it up...
Steely Dan Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 A rookie cap is confusing to me Lori. What do you think would happen if a rookie came in and had an Eric Dickerson type rookie season. Would any agent NOT hold the player out? The weird part about the structure is that neither side seems bound to honor a contract. For example yes, Peters did hold out, but if he played like Corey Loucheiy he would have been cut because contracts are not guaranteed. Complicated stuff. I'm sure there will be an escalator clause in each contract for rookies reaching certain goals before the end of their first contracts.
Big Turk Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 A rookie cap is confusing to me Lori. What do you think would happen if a rookie came in and had an Eric Dickerson type rookie season. Would any agent NOT hold the player out? The weird part about the structure is that neither side seems bound to honor a contract. For example yes, Peters did hold out, but if he played like Corey Loucheiy he would have been cut because contracts are not guaranteed. Complicated stuff. If the first contract cannot be renegotiated after it is signed by the rules of the league, then there would be no point in having a client hold out...
billsfan89 Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Here is what the players and the NFLPA is forgetting.... The owners, by and in large were able to buy NFL teams because they made their money elsewhere. The players get paid by the teams and basically have no other options to make money if they aren't getting paid by an NFL team(at least not the kind of money they are used to making). So the people holding all the cards here are the owners, who have a much, much, much better ability to withstand any type of work stoppage than the players, by and in large because they are making money elsewhere as well, which most likely dwarfs the money they are making on their NFL team. NFL careers are short. Are the players really willing to forgo an entire year of salary when they will never have another chance to get it back? Are the players willing to skip a year and have to fight for their roster spot with TWO rookie draft classes? There would be a LOT of veterans losing their jobs.... All the owners would have to do is wait until the players run out of money and then they would basically have to agree with whatever the owners wanted to, or go work at Walmart, or some other low paying job since many of them aren't well educated. Even those who are well educated likely would be taking a humongous pay cut regardless of what job they found. So, while the NFLPA can talk tough right now, they are like the little yorkie on the porch barking and barking and barking as the big dog walks away, after being silent while the big dog walks in front of their house.... If the best they can do is say we will tell the American people about what the NFL did, they obviously don't have a very strong position in their own mind, or more likely, talk a good game, but in the end don't have much to back it up... I mentioned it in my last post the owners have a deal in place with direct TV that gives them a billion dollars even in there is no season in 2011. Thats pretty much 30 million dollars per team for nothing. So the owners make money even if there is no season in place. While the players loose a year of salaries. So the Owners are going to have a nice warchest to sit back on while the players are high and dry. The NFLPA will never get anywhere as long as the league has these TV deals in place where they make money even if there is no football in place.
Delete This Account Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 just got back from the fireworks -- happy Canada Day and happy upcoming 4th to all -- and catching up on the discussion. correct me if i'm wrong on a few points here, and i just may well be wrong, so bear with me ... -- if the NFLPA was such a puppy dog union and the NFL owners so powerful, how did the union manage to push through Plan B free agency? -- also, if there is a consensus that the union "won" the last round of talks because the owners stumbled over themselves to sign the deal, what makes one assume that something like this can't happen again? -- the union has an opening to play the big-market teams against the small-market ones even more this team around, but i don't think the likes of Weaver (Jax), Al Davis and perhaps Ziggy (Vikes) are going to play follow the Jones' as easily (and blindly as some might put it) this time around. Tagliabue was able to get most on his side last time and, according to at least one owner, rewarded Davis by giving him four prime-time games in 2006. Question: Does Goodell have the similar ability or is he handcuffed by how the owners felt fooled last time? -- again, don't discount Smith's ability and connections to Wall Street and to Capital Hill. I found it curious that weeks after Smith was elected, the NFL upped its lobby in D.C. thoughts to consider ... might have time to pick this up tomorrow, but otherwise, vacation (and computer shutdown) looms. good discussion. thanks GG for getting it going and all for contributing. jw ADD: by the way, there's one owner i've spoken to who thought the small-market teams voice was lost in the last talks when Weaver voiced support for the CBA.
keepthefaith Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Here is what the players and the NFLPA is forgetting.... The owners, by and in large were able to buy NFL teams because they made their money elsewhere. The players get paid by the teams and basically have no other options to make money if they aren't getting paid by an NFL team(at least not the kind of money they are used to making). So the people holding all the cards here are the owners, who have a much, much, much better ability to withstand any type of work stoppage than the players, by and in large because they are making money elsewhere as well, which most likely dwarfs the money they are making on their NFL team. NFL careers are short. Are the players really willing to forgo an entire year of salary when they will never have another chance to get it back? Are the players willing to skip a year and have to fight for their roster spot with TWO rookie draft classes? There would be a LOT of veterans losing their jobs.... All the owners would have to do is wait until the players run out of money and then they would basically have to agree with whatever the owners wanted to, or go work at Walmart, or some other low paying job since many of them aren't well educated. Even those who are well educated likely would be taking a humongous pay cut regardless of what job they found. So, while the NFLPA can talk tough right now, they are like the little yorkie on the porch barking and barking and barking as the big dog walks away, after being silent while the big dog walks in front of their house.... If the best they can do is say we will tell the American people about what the NFL did, they obviously don't have a very strong position in their own mind, or more likely, talk a good game, but in the end don't have much to back it up... Agree. Hopefully the way the cap gets calculated will be modified to more closely resemble the "cash to cap" approach used by the Bills. A cap that doesn't limit how much cash per year is spent on players isn't really a cap. Like many have said, the rookie salaries need to be addressed. I'm all for free markets and for people making as much as they can, but if you're running a sports league and managing a competitive balance, you need to close the loopholes. The owners really hold the much better cards if it gets ugly an IMO they should be willling to play hard ball even if it means a strike.
billsfan89 Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 just got back from the fireworks -- happy Canada Day and happy upcoming 4th to all -- and catching up on the discussion.correct me if i'm wrong on a few points here, and i just may well be wrong, so bear with me ... -- if the NFLPA was such a puppy dog union and the NFL owners so powerful, how did the union manage to push through Plan B free agency? -- also, if there is a consensus that the union "won" the last round of talks because the owners stumbled over themselves to sign the deal, what makes one assume that something like this can't happen again? -- the union has an opening to play the big-market teams against the small-market ones even more this team around, but i don't think the likes of Weaver (Jax), Al Davis and perhaps Ziggy (Vikes) are going to play follow the Jones' as easily (and blindly as some might put it) this time around. Tagliabue was able to get most on his side last time and, according to at least one owner, rewarded Davis by giving him four prime-time games in 2006. Question: Does Goodell have the similar ability or is he handcuffed by how the owners felt fooled last time? -- again, don't discount Smith's ability and connections to Wall Street and to Capital Hill. I found it curious that weeks after Smith was elected, the NFL upped its lobby in D.C. thoughts to consider ... might have time to pick this up tomorrow, but otherwise, vacation (and computer shutdown) looms. good discussion. thanks GG for getting it going and all for contributing. jw ADD: by the way, there's one owner i've spoken to who thought the small-market teams voice was lost in the last talks when Weaver voiced support for the CBA. The reason the NFLPA is a weak union is because a lot of players crossed during the labor strikes of the 1980's. The Owners know that and use that against the players. Of course they make some concessions because they don't want a lock out but overall they get what they want most of the time. During this CBA they will push for a rookie salary slotting system and other sort of things they want. The players will get a few of the things they want but like I said overall they just won't come out the winners. Because when it comes down to it the Union only has an empty threat of a strike to threaten the owners with.
Delete This Account Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 The reason the NFLPA is a weak union is because a lot of players crossed during the labor strikes of the 1980's. The Owners know that and use that against the players. Of course they make some concessions because they don't want a lock out but overall they get what they want most of the time. During this CBA they will push for a rookie salary slotting system and other sort of things they want. The players will get a few of the things they want but like I said overall they just won't come out the winners. Because when it comes down to it the Union only has an empty threat of a strike to threaten the owners with. the trouble is, it's the owners who need to rework this deal. the players have leverage this time because unless they get certain concessions from the nfl, the players can wait things out. it's not as if there's going to be a lockout or strike over the next two seasons. the current cba will work through this year and then we enter an uncapped year, which the players have no problem with. the owners, however, just might. and an uncapped year might well open the schism between big and small-market teams which just might lead to the nfl once again rushing to sign the first deal presented to them. i don't know if it's as cut and dried as you suggest. jw
Bill from NYC Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 I'm sure there will be an escalator clause in each contract for rookies reaching certain goals before the end of their first contracts. Fair enough. I do wonder what would happen if an owner signed a player like Earl Campbell and actually wanted to rip up his deal and sign him long term. That guy was unstoppable as a rookie. He was one of the best ever on the first day he walked onto the field. And, I am positive that he made tons of money for the owner.
GG Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Fair enough. I do wonder what would happen if an owner signed a player like Earl Campbell and actually wanted to rip up his deal and sign him long term. That guy was unstoppable as a rookie. He was one of the best ever on the first day he walked onto the field. And, I am positive that he made tons of money for the owner. For every Earl Cambpell, there are five Blair Thomases. That's why it totally makes sense for a rookie cap. Veteran players should be puking at Stafford's contract, only because he happened to be born at the right time that there was no better QB in this particular draft.
nucci Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 the trouble is, it's the owners who need to rework this deal. the players have leverage this time because unless they get certain concessions from the nfl, the players can wait things out. it's not as if there's going to be a lockout or strike over the next two seasons.the current cba will work through this year and then we enter an uncapped year, which the players have no problem with. the owners, however, just might. and an uncapped year might well open the schism between big and small-market teams which just might lead to the nfl once again rushing to sign the first deal presented to them. i don't know if it's as cut and dried as you suggest. jw Are there not provisions in the current CBA that makes free agency more restrictive if the league plays in an uncapped year? Players have to wait 6 years to become UFA and teams get an extra franchise tag. If a team can keep a player for 6 years before he is allowed to leave, I think spending would actually go down. The average career is about 4 years. I think you would see an increase in holdouts like we did in the '70s.
Steely Dan Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 For every Earl Cambpell, there are five Blair Thomases. That's why it totally makes sense for a rookie cap. Veteran players should be puking at Stafford's contract, only because he happened to be born at the right time that there was no better QB in this particular draft. What he said.
Recommended Posts